Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    February 28, 2015 1:00am-1:31am PST

1:00 am
with you to us with language relate to the regulations of bundling that will keep that will be sensitive to the concerns of just not picking up some innocent members of the public who has finds a candidate having an appeal and raises as a fundraiser for them and that to that end to link the bundling regulations in with the requirements upon the candidates and also perhaps link it in with what we're going to be taking in item 4 the public benefits that the person is doing the bundling is someone that might be
1:01 am
interested in a pro so we don't burn the good government person that decides to bag a mr. smith they want to send to wosh. >> second to that motion. >> all in favor, say i. >> opposed the motion is carried let's turn to 3 enhanced private right of action. >> commissioners by way of clarification at the end of our discussion we can tube sort of the when and - >> okay. thank you the next item has to do with enhancing the counter private right of action found in c section that
1:02 am
allows a voter to sue a candidate or city person to sue the c from as long as the city attorney decides not to sue so this was made and the san francisco grand jury over the past year the general rational is it will better insensitive the relations and folks have pointed to the san francisco and california so the folks can be recovery up to electro50 percent a row there's no current section that explicit contemplate that the plaintiff will get penalties it provide an incentive to allow
1:03 am
for attorneys foes so this is the general proposal and staff will note we talked with the folks in los angeles search warrant as well the state level those provisions are not frequently used in either of the jurisdiction they were different jurisdictions so that's the idea. >> any commissioner have any comments? >> i have a question. >> at this time there is- no one can sue under those circumstances it's prohibited is there language that says it's prohibited. >> in, in fact somebody can sues is he have to essentially
1:04 am
run it by the ethics commission and the city attorney first to give us first shot of enforcing those potential violations but assuming the city attorney says and the ethics commission says no. we're going got to do anything the plaintiff can force compliance it is hypothetical but there's a committee or a group of people that are raising and spending money on an election for they're not recording 34ig for whatever reason the city attorney's office we're not interested in enforcing it they can be sued so they have to sue and they'll get their foes. >> this is the six so why impact an amendment to c from to
1:05 am
enhance they're right. >> i think the rational is that right now you would get attorney's fees but it's safer in violation of the law they'll get half the penalties so say again somebody failed to report and fined or they were subject to a penalty of $50,000 that plaintiff would walk away with $24,000 in arithmetic to the attorney's fees if they're successful. >> any public comments. >> i'll make two points you're correct the right to sue does currently exist that was appointment in the budget
1:06 am
analyst report with the commission having reports this merely mentioned there's a right to sue in san francisco and didn't mention the comparison which was the budget analyst comparison where there's a recovery of penalty two things it puts a timeline for the ta and da to come back with a decision i'm sure you're aware of we'll have complaints saying we're going to act or no, this they'll be required to come back and say within under the current rules i believe within 14 days the commission comes back and says we're going to or not going to do this 14 days is a fast
1:07 am
turn around you're hearing a case tonight that's 4 years ago when they drag on the pueblos confidence so the timeline is one thing and the second thing you do want to have a threshold that is reasonable and in california at the state the secretary of state acting secretary of state tony miller he made a living filing complaint after he left that job and finally the state said wait a minute this is clustering this up and not important so at the changed the standard but i think there recent some value in having sort of something that hangs over enforcement because frankly san francisco's representation for enforcement is not great not if you talk to
1:08 am
the head of the fcc thank you. >> when i discussed this at the civil grand jury it that came up in prop j you're going to talk about and that had a fairly strongest private right of action that went away you're allowed any person to sue in local courts to enforce you can prop j and to recover 90 percent of the money and get attorney's fees as well so this was a much stronger right of action than now exists in san
1:09 am
francisco ordinance thank you. >> anita gentlemen briefly amending c from for percentages on the penalties will appear to give an expression of something other than wanting to have a enforcement it should be a preliminary law of the district attorney and not bournt hunter. >> thank you anyone want to make a motion connection with the private right of action?
1:10 am
hearing no comments i think we'll pass that one at least for new now >> the fourth one is contribution abandons foreperson receiving a quote public benefit quote/unquote from the city. >> thank you, commissioners this proposal was as mentioned before put forth originally by the civil grand jury and it is reported last year noting that there had been prop j passed by the voter in 2000 that essential speaking rebroadly took what we had as the contractor ban theres a ban currently on folks that are negotiating contracts those folks are not able to contribute
1:11 am
to city officials for a specified period of time that rational was applied with respect to a whole sort of list of benefits that folks might receive from the city such variances and tax abatements and special permits the idea being that if something is is soaking an official action they shouldn't be able to contribute to someone that was sort of in charge of making the action this was part of prop j in 2003 and then proposition e and refined some of the prohibitions in
1:12 am
proposition j the idea my understanding the folks from the civil grand jury the consideration not necessarily to re reimpact prop j but contributions when someone is applying forgive a permit or variance, etc. prohibit hopefully from making the contributions for that so it's a play to pay rule and the only thing we'll note there is under state law a limit on contributions that can be received by appointed officials not to necessarily elected officials but appointed to sit on a commission they can't receive contributions of more than $250 that's a general
1:13 am
summon i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> any comments. >> commissioner vice president haney. >> yes. mr. chair this is one that i would respectfully suggest we go forward with the whole i think something is lost with praeks they ask whether it is valuable and so target in on the main vice we're talking about the play to play in regards to someone that is getting a public benefit for being able to give to the person who was making that decision sort of goes to the heart of something that may well be corrupt or certainly appears to be corrupt and the subject of a
1:14 am
grateful of controversy in the city 0 over the last few years i'll ask we go forward on this one as well and have the staff come back to us with some suggested language for a good a regulation that has teeth not allowing the kind of pay to play that is suggested by someone getting a public benefit in being able to contribute to the person who is going to make the decision they're going to get the benefit. >> other comments from any of the commissioners. >> commissioner hayon.
1:15 am
>> under prop b the contractor ban no public benefit. >> that's correct under city law. >> why did it supercede prop j. >> that's the expressed pregs progression of the property e we're going to take away everything this of the prop j and replace that with this narrow focused limits i wasn't there there were probably folks here that can explain it better it was true that the time prop j and the language that was infected that language was destined by the oaks project that lunge made it's way into maybe a half-dozen city laws
1:16 am
there was a challenge down in southern california for some of the language part of it was declared unconstitutional i don't know for a fact but i imagine proposition e superseding statute was enacted in part to that court case and some of the constitutional concerns that came up in southern california we look at himself. >> this a one an additional effort to broaden out prop a and to broaden it. >> to go right so right now the contracts radio covered and again, this will canned it to the issues of permits that are not covered right now
1:17 am
yeah. >> commissioner andrews. >> as i said the contract it isn't that you can never donate you would be using that language in 6 months of a particular election cycle so there's lack that surround it is that the language you seek to mimic this there's an opportunity to do not. >> it's from the beginning of negotiation after perusal of the contract with the state law prohibition with the limit of $250 there's a time limit there i think one of the problems with prop j was actually, the prohibition laced 6 years in
1:18 am
some cases we want to make sure that the limit lasted for the appropriate amount of time because this is a limit end to prohibition we'll have to build the appropriate record that takes a little bit of homework for staff it's sort of complicated housing and tax issues just to find out there is, in fact, a justification for this limit. >> i'm familiar with the contractor abandon i think there is possibly some conversation for the nonprofit the executive director and he ceo couldn't i think it coasted board members it makes it trvrm it's hard to keep track of our board members
1:19 am
activities and so has an opportunity to for one to fall down unknowingly. >> undoebl that's correct with the abandoned the contractor ban and i believe in prop j it applied to corporate officers but to the board members and frankly that's a lot of recordkeeping to figure out occupying we have to found out who is actually applying for what predicament and decisions and kwh when it is triggered and who are the board members and individuals covered corporates cannot make direct contributions to candidates to the prohibition is on they're owners and board
1:20 am
members. >> hear a motion in connection with item 4. >> yes. mr. chair, i ask we direct the staff to come back i've i'm sorry to come back to us with language that will address the question of someone who is receiving a public benefit if it city not being allowed to engage in contributing or any type of pay to play activities they're allowed to do now the public benefit aspect of the prohibition be put in to broken
1:21 am
down the present prohibitions against contractor and other specific people that are in there now. >> second. >> second it i think we can take the first step. >> public comment on this particular one? yeah. i'd like to make a few historical points the whole section of our report is the history of prop j and it's repel prop e was a broader rewrite of the laws of the city a number of those are adopted by the voters and moved in certain ways where you will venting to amend them
1:22 am
in the future glow the board of supervisors like the campaign so there's a whole there's a lot of moving parts the trshth of limitations have been separate ballot proposals that were encontacted in the 80s and 90s prop j was not an outside group from sole they've got their own lunge that didn't mesh with other language and had other things it was raising what intrigued us with the public benefit yold that in the technicalities in our package there's a finding of the declarations that are very strong with about you know the appearances of corruption and things like that and grant the
1:23 am
public benefits that went away i think what strengthened ordinances that are aimed at controlling corruption regardless of how the other text was worked with this concept of thinking about publicly benefits is important for thinking about how the flow of money can effect city government in negative ways so i will forward you that section of the report for you to look at but the think the history is a little bit more complicated then being discussed at this point >> other public comment? >> larry bush from friends of ethics when this was passed as prop e nothing in the material that went to the commission that explained those prop j was being
1:24 am
repelled and nothing told to the board of supervisors when they did the rewrite not in the voters handing handbook we can people served on the commission that h said i have no idea and members of the board of supervisors that like the president of the board of supervisors that said i had no idea so when mr. raven put together the section for the grand jury he repeated the quotes under the nicole and the board of supervisors and there's no mention in any of this about repel the public benefits prohibition there was an earlier effort by members of the commission to repeal the section
1:25 am
having go to do with the board of supervisors but couldn't find a section you'll not find a sponsor for that 0 that's not the way it is at city hall of this is not election year people understand the dynamics but certainly when your talking about things like tomcast or ecology or other types people with special permits there are questions raised all the time about the fact that in terms of being able to do research and work we did it at city report i just hired somebody to go through the top 15 you can go through the star and match it up on the converting computer system additional match it up virtually everyone of the nancy
1:26 am
pelosi nonprofits had made contributions we're talking about people getting contracts over $10 million so there's a reason why people have skepticism i suggest you guys look at the facts thank you. >> mr. chair may i ask mr. bush a question mr. bush you're more knowledge be able the history we listened to this and seems like there are negligence about the prohibition of someone getting a benefit that all of a sudden that disappeared and everyone in
1:27 am
positions of responsibility said gee we didn't know that is what happened then is that what happened then. >> i don't think that the people on the commission or the board were role aware of that provision because prop e in 2003 was broad had a great degree of material and if you look at the record it says we're going to come back to the some of the things later and, of course explicit and moved into the administrative code amended i ethics commission and, of course no one that have happened it looked at they were all processed original rather than result oriented and the ethics commission that put it forward i don't want to say ill things they thought they were doing the right thing in
1:28 am
cleaning things up in terms of supervisor david chiu's question about the length of time after someone had a contract while this prohibition is in neck that commission voted to make it 12 months and not sent to the board of supervisors a list of things that had been done by the commission but we are dropped in terms of getting to the board so 12 months is on record thank you. >> the fourth proposal will reenact the prop j as the taxpayer act a confusing ordinance that is on caption
1:29 am
tricks for people that receive public benefits such as a tax boimentsz, etc. prop j required the city officials to monitor to make sure the donors hadn't received as staff indicated prop j was repealed and proposition e waltz put into law the right side digest satdz it desolates prop j and that proposition e about accomplish goals by eliminating gifts and contributions but those provisions will be gnarling tailored to accomplish and in addition the ballot argument in favor state many of the ethics laws were out dated
1:30 am
or confusing and not inadequately addressing the regulations so the ethics commission spent the last 11 months discussing this with the public and city officials and legal experts cross california proposition e is a result i urge you not reimpact any of the confusions of prop j. >> any other public comment all in favor of the motion. >> i. >> i. >> opposed the motion is passed turning to 5 which is environment as a penalty

6 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on